Sign in with Facebook
Nataliya's Reviews > Cat Person
Cat Person
by
by
This is an expectations vs reality story, a story of disconnect between how we hope things would be and how they are, in all their resplendent awkwardness and misunderstandings brought by people creating their own narratives in their heads, the narratives that often have very little to do with reality.
Margot is a very young college student who meets an older guy Robert in a movie theater where she works, and what ensues is a somewhat awkward but initially endearing online friendship/flirtation that then gets destroyed by awkwardness of real life and huge disconnect to what was built up based on online presence. And trying to hold on to fleeting moments of happiness does not salvage something that’s not going to work out. And that communication is important, and so is rationality, and that sometimes things will still make you feel shitty even if nothing wrong was done. You don’t have to be an actual victim for life to leave an unpleasant aftertaste in your mouth, and that may be why it resonated so much.
It’s written very well, perfectly capturing the motives and excuses and nuances in such a relationship without piling on unnecessary drama. Life does not have to indulge our romantic notions, but it doesn’t need to play out the disappointment with drama; it can just be simply low-key. We don’t see Robert’s experience there, we can only infer it (literature has offered us male perspective on such situation in spades), but we are privy to Margot’s level-headed crush and her dealing with the situation, with letting things play out in a certain often cringeworthy way even when she doesn’t lack self-awareness.
(Although I do NOT appreciate the roommate taking things into her hands, it was needlessly intrusive and certainly a whiplash of a situation that in my opinion should have been closed with more afterthought and consideration).
And no, Margot is not a victim here, which I loved. The interactions including awkward and uncomfortable sex are all consensual, which doesn’t mean she does not regret them later and finds the experience unpleasant — but it’s unlikely that her future will be irrevocably defined by the unpleasantness of Robert situation. She’ll shrug and move on, and I like that. She’s just starting her life, and Robert indeed will be just an awkward episode in it which I’m sure she will eventually laugh about, although probably with little actual mirth. And maybe she’ll learn that what we want life to be and what it actually is sometimes quite a bit different.
It’s messy and awkward and a bit cringeworthy and yet, at least to me, doesn’t draw a stark line dividing people based on “power” which seems to be a trend. It’s messy from all sides, and it’s full of feelings and life mistakes that one can easily recognize, and that’s life.
4 stars.
—————
Read it here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...
——————
Also posted on my blog.
Margot is a very young college student who meets an older guy Robert in a movie theater where she works, and what ensues is a somewhat awkward but initially endearing online friendship/flirtation that then gets destroyed by awkwardness of real life and huge disconnect to what was built up based on online presence. And trying to hold on to fleeting moments of happiness does not salvage something that’s not going to work out. And that communication is important, and so is rationality, and that sometimes things will still make you feel shitty even if nothing wrong was done. You don’t have to be an actual victim for life to leave an unpleasant aftertaste in your mouth, and that may be why it resonated so much.
“On the walk back to her dorm, she was filled with a sparkly lightness that she recognized as the sign of an incipient crush.”
It’s written very well, perfectly capturing the motives and excuses and nuances in such a relationship without piling on unnecessary drama. Life does not have to indulge our romantic notions, but it doesn’t need to play out the disappointment with drama; it can just be simply low-key. We don’t see Robert’s experience there, we can only infer it (literature has offered us male perspective on such situation in spades), but we are privy to Margot’s level-headed crush and her dealing with the situation, with letting things play out in a certain often cringeworthy way even when she doesn’t lack self-awareness.
(Although I do NOT appreciate the roommate taking things into her hands, it was needlessly intrusive and certainly a whiplash of a situation that in my opinion should have been closed with more afterthought and consideration).
“But the thought of what it would take to stop what she had set in motion was overwhelming; it would require an amount of tact and gentleness that she felt was impossible to summon. It wasn’t that she was scared he would try to force her to do something against her will but that insisting that they stop now, after everything she’d done to push this forward, would make her seem spoiled and capricious, as if she’d ordered something at a restaurant and then, once the food arrived, had changed her mind and sent it back.”
And no, Margot is not a victim here, which I loved. The interactions including awkward and uncomfortable sex are all consensual, which doesn’t mean she does not regret them later and finds the experience unpleasant — but it’s unlikely that her future will be irrevocably defined by the unpleasantness of Robert situation. She’ll shrug and move on, and I like that. She’s just starting her life, and Robert indeed will be just an awkward episode in it which I’m sure she will eventually laugh about, although probably with little actual mirth. And maybe she’ll learn that what we want life to be and what it actually is sometimes quite a bit different.
It’s messy and awkward and a bit cringeworthy and yet, at least to me, doesn’t draw a stark line dividing people based on “power” which seems to be a trend. It’s messy from all sides, and it’s full of feelings and life mistakes that one can easily recognize, and that’s life.
4 stars.
—————
Read it here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...
——————
Also posted on my blog.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Cat Person.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
October 29, 2023
–
Started Reading
October 29, 2023
– Shelved
October 29, 2023
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-25 of 25 (25 new)
date
newest »
newest »
s.penkevich wrote: "Wonderful review and analysis. Agreed, I liked this one a lot too and I love your point about how its not like a simple "this person was the victim" and really captures how relationships are just n..."I came across this story on accident - saw a lukewarm movie review that mentioned it was based on a short story, got curious, clicked over and enjoyed the reading experience. I had no clue about Twitter storms or any controversy about it.
Reading your link — huh, it sheds a new light on the situation. You know, it’s such a knee-jerk response to expect a story about a woman who’s 20 and a guy who’s 34 to involve power imbalance and victimizing and such, and I did not see it in this short story — and clearly that’s not what happened in the real-life situation that serves as inspiration for Roupenian. (Although given how this short story ended and what happened in real life, I’d say it’s a stretch saying it was about that woman and her partner — it was inspired by that situation, but then went in a more predictable direction).
Have you read this story, Steven? I’d be very curious for your take on it.
You should really read the Slate response about the guy this story was based on. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Great review.
Mwanamali wrote: "You should really read the Slate response about the guy this story was based on. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Great review."I read the article Steven linked to above and the interview with the woman whose relationship became the inspiration point for the story. Certainly not a story of a villain even though from a few reviews I’ve read in the hour or so after posting mine I do see Robert seen as such. I don’t see it that way; to me it’s a story of an awkward relationship that went further than it should have because of expectations based on hopes rather than reality.
A very interesting review, Nataliya! The story seems intriguing. (I don't know anything about the true events that seem to have inspired it.)
Nataliya wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Wonderful review and analysis. Agreed, I liked this one a lot too and I love your point about how its not like a simple "this person was the victim" and really captures how rela..."Oh interesting, I didn't realize it was adapted into a film. I agree, I think Robert is sort of more a representation of...how relationships are awkward and get ugly and sad instead of an outright villain. Like you said, its all consensual and I think the angle of people vilifying him distracts from the more important look at just how messy human interactions are when sex is involved and it felt very...just true even if its a more predictable outcome than what really happened. Like sure, its an example of how younger women can be manipulated or taken advantage but I agree with you that that doesn't seem to actually be her point or even lean into that? Like I think she's just saying this is what life is like and does that pretty effectively? Like to me its more a story of Margot having hope and running up into disappointment with reality?
But YEA, the Slate article kind of made me sad, he just seemed like a very generic Ann Arbor weirdo that was actually pretty harmless? When it came out a few friends of mine were like hey did we know him (I lived in Ann Arbor during college around the time Roupenian was there). I feel like if she had just changed the name of her hometown and place of work it would have made it more anonymous? Like even she admits its not close to what happened but probably just inspired by it? Though I think that too plays into the social media need for people to decide someone is a villain in every situation instead of just being messy people being messy?
Alexandra wrote: "A very interesting review, Nataliya! The story seems intriguing. (I don't know anything about the true events that seem to have inspired it.)"Thanks, Alexandra!
This is a story about a mostly online relationship that led to a very unsatisfying date, and then it was carelessly cut off promoting an angry response. From what I understand, it was then related to #MeToo movement (although if you ask me, I think it’s shoehorning it way too much). And apparently the guy in the story was inspired by someone the writer knew and his younger girlfriend, and that story was posted by that girlfriend, and in real life that relationship was actually long-term and pretty positive, even if it didn’t lead to a lifelong commitment.
Nataliya wrote: "Thanks, Alexandra!This is a story about a mostly online relationship that led to a very unsatisfying date, and then it was carelessly cut off promoting an angry response."
I see! Interesting, thank you for the explanation.
s.penkevich wrote: "Though I think that too plays into the social media need for people to decide someone is a villain in every situation instead of just being messy people being messy? "Exactly. I think because #MeToo was everywhere people were looking for connections and a connection was made. Margot in this story was not manipulated or taken advantage of; she may have had some bad judgment in providing basically consolation sex but it was her choice, and Robert may have been a more fun person online than his real-life awkwardness but it seemed to me to be a story about a young woman making choices, things getting messy and her moving on without being permanently scarred, and getting an upset reaction that’s not okay but also nothing tragic. And nobody was in the wrong or in the right. Some things are better as online friendship, I suppose. Margot actually seemed like a well-adjusted young woman who is figuring out life.
And as far as I understand from Nowicki’s article, Roupenian used the general framework of someone else’s experience without actually representing the actual relationship involved. Yes, had she changed the details I didn’t think it would have led to distress it caused Nowicki, given that her experience with her ex was very different, and the man has since died.
Nataliya wrote: "Mwanamali wrote: "You should really read the Slate response about the guy this story was based on. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Great review."I read the article Steven linked to a..."
The debate after was a case of ethics. Like Bad Art Friend. Did Kristen have the right to write this story?
Nataliya wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Though I think that too plays into the social media need for people to decide someone is a villain in every situation instead of just being messy people being messy? "Exactly...."
Yea that’s a great point. I think, if anything, this story itself is a fascinating window into 2017 online culture. I remember the day the story came out in the New Yorker my entire twitter feed was people arguing about it. Apparently some shitty men hated on it as misandrist and, as online storms go, the conversation was forced to be extreme instead of addressing it with nuance? And I feel like the conversation about the conversation got mistakenly rolled into an analysis of the story, that a woman can’t say an encounter with a man was awkward and disappointing without men thinking it’s an obscene attack on masculinity across the board and then forcing the framing of the conversation from that as the baseline made people position rebuttals as these criticisms being a thinly veiled attack on the #MeToo movement and there were endless threads about men using power imbalances to keep women silent…and so everyone made the story a symbol of that despite it really…not being about that? Sorry for the ramble trying to analyze it in real time haha but I think that’s my best guess for that?
But yea that was a bit of a bummer. I remember Carmen Maria Machado being really vocal after the article that writers do in fact just take stories and make it their own and that assumptions that Roupenian couldn’t create based on something she heard is a misunderstanding of how fiction works, which then led to notable authors arguing about her thread for days (and then the whole American Dirt online argument got roped in and then Bad Art Friend). Whew and that is the sparknotes for literary twitter from 2016-2020 haha
Anyways I think your review is spot on because it addresses the story as the story and not the whole “situation” so my apologies for butting in with it but mostly I love telling the bit about my friend living in her house and getting all her ARCs and hate mail after the article came out haha (so sorry that got so long!)
Mwanamali wrote: "The debate after was a case of ethics. Like Bad Art Friend. Did Kristen have the right to write this story? "I don’t see why not; it seems that she invented all the pivotal scenes anyway. She should have been cognizant of the impact if the characters had recognized themselves in her setup though and should have taken care to remove the recognizable parts.
Writers get inspired by all kinds of things 🤷♀️
s.penkevich wrote: "Yea that’s a great point. I think, if anything, this story itself is a fascinating window into 2017 online culture."Steven, I really appreciate you providing context for the story and for the furor it apparently caused. I was unaware of that all — 2017 was a year when work and stress were at the levels so high I was lucky enough to keep up with life and major events and not with online discussions.
And that story about ARCs is great :) (less so about getting hate mail. Wtf is wrong with people thinking it’s ok to send sending hate mail to anyone? People are ridiculous).
Sometimes I can only laugh at how easy people can make any discussion into a polarizing one given the ingrained need not just to take sides but to also be on the “right” one. It’s sad then how the sane story can be presented as both misandrist and misogynist when it’s really none of those things.
(And that’s why I would love to see your analysis of it. Your reviews are always such enlighteningly wonderful essays from which I always learn something new and unexpected, and I’m selfishly always wish for more from you. You should publish them as a book of literary critique, I swear. I’ll buy it :)
Nataliya wrote: "Mwanamali wrote: "The debate after was a case of ethics. Like Bad Art Friend. Did Kristen have the right to write this story? "I don’t see why not; it seems that she invented all the pivotal scen..."
You should read Bad Art Friend too.
Nataliya wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Yea that’s a great point. I think, if anything, this story itself is a fascinating window into 2017 online culture."Steven, I really appreciate you providing context for the s..."
Thank you because I would certainly order your own book like that. And put it in the library and on every bookstore display haha.
Yea that’s a good point to on the polarization. I feel like online discourse is encouraged to do that because the more “hot take” an opinion the more attention it gets and the most easily digestible ones get amplified while the actually nuanced takes get skipped? I like your point about being able to be on the “right” side too, it’s almost like declaring winner/loser or villain/victim is a sort of comfort zone thinking? And actually impedes progress? Which is frustrating in a literary setting because I think a lot of what literature is good at is addressing the murky nuances. Sorry I keep sending entire novels of comments but there is a Brandon Taylor essay I think about constantly where he talks about his distaste for novels that are really right/wrong dynamics (which he terms as immoral art) and tries to explain what he thinks actually useful moral art is:
“ Moral art is, I think, hard to describe. Instable. It is art that implicates and complicates your notions of good and bad. Moral art may call you a liar to your face. It reveals the shallowness of your thought. It challenges you, but not in the way of an all-fiber diet. In the way gravity challenges you. In the way the thin air at the top of a mountain challenges you. In the way the pressure of the deep seas challenges you. Moral does not mean good or lawful. Moral means true. Moral means you take your finger off the scale.
To make moral art, moral fiction, is to get out of the way. To make moral art is to admit one’s humble place in the order of things. I think moral fiction is less about signaling to the reader that you voted for the right people or that you are able to listen to people who would have you destroyed. Moral fiction does not signal. That is propaganda. That is social work. Not that these are unimportant things, but they are not art. And they are not moral.”
Which is all to say I think your take on this story is approaching it appropriately haha so well done. I think this story certainly asks you to form opinions but it does so by just showing something true? Sally Rooney was really good about that in her first two books (I’d argue the third she puts her finger on the scale) and it’s interesting to see how those two novels tend to spark conversations about right and wrong and part of the third book seemed to be her trying to say “no I don’t think that’s what I was saying” I’ll shut up now!
Mwanamali wrote: "You should read Bad Art Friend too"Tried looking it up and I’m confused. What is the fuss about?
s.penkevich wrote: "Sorry I keep sending entire novels of comments but there is a Brandon Taylor essay I think about constantly where he talks about his distaste for novels that are really right/wrong dynamics (which he terms as immoral art) and tries to explain what he thinks actually useful moral art is:"Your “entire novels of comments” are fascinating and I love them! Please keep them coming!
That’s an interesting take on “moral” art; certainly not something I’ve ever considered this way. I guess the art that’s all about virtue signaling is indeed just simple propaganda; art should be more complex than that, otherwise it’s just advertisement. But it’s the entire human history, isn’t it? Looking for easy definition of right and wrong, moral and immoral, us and them. And social media giving everyone an immediate voice tends to encourage the binary thinking and deep divides as immediate reactions to everything.
I still need to read an earlier Rooney book; I’ve backburnered them after I bounced off pretty hard of her “Beautiful World” one (I think that’s the one with the finger on the scales you’re referring to).
Nataliya wrote: "Mwanamali wrote: "You should read Bad Art Friend too"Tried looking it up and I’m confused. What is the fuss about?"
Did Sonya plagiarise Donna? Was Donna right to do what she did after Sonya published her story?
It's so reassuring to hear your recognition that not everything that happens to you has political import -- each of us is just one of 7 billion people wandering around, doing their best. Conflicts are inevitable.
Mwanamali wrote: "Nataliya wrote: "Mwanamali wrote: "You should read Bad Art Friend too"Tried looking it up and I’m confused. What is the fuss about?"
Did Sonya plagiarise Donna? Was Donna right to do what she di..."
From the little I’ve read I don’t think there’s plagiarism. But even without plagiarism there can be human shittiness putting people down for altruistic decisions and then not even trying to hide where the story comes from. (Of course I may be missing all kinds of nuances in my quick Google search).
Left Coast Justin wrote: "It's so reassuring to hear your recognition that not everything that happens to you has political import -- each of us is just one of 7 billion people wandering around, doing their best. Conflicts ..."I’m glad we see it the same way. Things happen because life is messy, and sometimes that’s all there is to it.
Nataliya wrote: "Mwanamali wrote: "Nataliya wrote: "Mwanamali wrote: "You should read Bad Art Friend too"Tried looking it up and I’m confused. What is the fuss about?"
Did Sonya plagiarise Donna? Was Donna right..."
Lord no. you need to read the full article.
nytimes [dot] com/2021/10/05/magazine/dorland-v-larson.html
Mwanamali wrote: "Lord no. you need to read the full article. "Paywall 😔
Nataliya wrote: "Mwanamali wrote: "Lord no. you need to read the full article. "Paywall 😔"
Ooo was just about to respond which I’ll do shortly but I have a nytimes pass through my library account I’ll DM you the full text of that article
s.penkevich wrote: "Nataliya wrote: "Mwanamali wrote: "Lord no. you need to read the full article. "Paywall 😔"
Ooo was just about to respond which I’ll do shortly but I have a nytimes pass through my library accoun..."
Thanks, Steven! This was quite a read, to say the least. Interesting to read the development of a trainwreck — how it starts with people feeling that a woman is rubbing the virtue of her kidney donation into others’ faces while that woman is proud of what she’s done while really putting it out there (as many are prone to do, get attention from something that still is altruistic), then progresses to behind the scenes mocking of her, then suddenly it’s copyright infringement (where Larson, in the light of the later surfaced texts/emails is clearly lying) to suddenly becoming a matter of race and privilege and white savior complex.
Interesting evolution to say the least 🤷♀️ And my reaction to both people involved is one exhausted facepalm. (And this reaction is certainly not meant to be used an an incriminating material by any of the parties involved 😅)
Have you read up on the controversy around the actual creation of the story? Theres a pretty fascinating article from the real woman Cat Person is about. Which then is almost a power dynamic discussion in itself? Worth a read:
slate [dot] com/human-interest/2021/07/cat-person-kristen-roupenian-viral-story-about-me.html
But in a happier angle, my college best friend ended up renting the house Roupenian lived in during her time doing an MFA at UofM and the house described in the story is exactly his house haha. He used to get ARCs intended for her allllll the time and was always the one giving me good future book recommendations because of it haha.